Operation Iraqi Freedom: Stay the course…
“America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” –James Madison
Amid all the political posturing regarding OIF – specifically the Democrat’s largely successful efforts to undermine American will to stay the course in Iraq, one fact is obscured by the bitter debate. Elements of Radical Islam remain determined to strike Western targets in an effort to thwart democratic influence in the Middle East, and if we drop our guard, they will hit us hard.
The danger is as real and the threat as imminent today as on 11 September 2001, however the United States and our allies are doing a much better job of containing Jihadi terror cells and interdicting threats.
Establishing a functional democracy in the heart of the Middle East – Iraq – was, and remains, critical to our long-term national interests in the region.
What follows is a collection of essays outlining why we fight and why we must stay the course in Iraq. We encourage you to read these essays and vigorously defend OIF – particularly in light of the fact that the casualty rate and sectarian violence is decreasing, and Iraq’s security capabilities are improving at a significant pace.
On 11 September 2001, we Americans awoke to the horrifying reality that – like it or not, accept it or not – our nation was at war with a formidable enemy.
Islam is the locus of the ideology behind modern terrorism. It’s an ideology that is also inherently fascist. It is no coincidence that these terrorist-fascists happen to be Muslim, for Islam itself is a clerical-fascist system of belief.
Next, having identified the origin of the threat, we examined the nature of it. While the September 11 attacks constitute a grave tragedy, it is hardly the gravest possible.
Read what the Demo-gogues had to say about OIF…before defeat and retreat became their political platform.
The first constitutional responsibility of any U.S. President is to our national security. In the event that our vital national interests are threatened, the President has the authority to commit armed forces to protect those interests.
On 11 September 2001, after eight years of the Clinton administration’s national security malfeasance, and eight months of the newly installed Bush administration’s effort to reorder national priorities, most Americans were unaware that a deadly enemy had coalesced in our midst. But before noon on 9/11, it became clear that our vital national interests – both the security of our homeland and the stability of our energy providers abroad – were under assault. An enemy had declared war on the United States, and it was an enemy unlike any before.
Is our fight against terrorism or against Islamic fascism? To wit, is Islam peaceful, or intrinsically fascist?
The answers couldn’t be clearer. Terrorism is not an enemy; it’s a tactic. Muslim examples aside, terrorist tactics have been adopted by groups as varied as Northern Ireland’s IRA, Colombia’s FARC, the Shining Path of Peru, West Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Brigate Rosse, Spain’s Basque ETA, and our homegrown Symbionese Liberation Army. Mostly separatists and leftists, none of these groups viewed terrorism as an end in itself, but as a means to another, political end.
Unlike terrorism, Islam is an ideology bent on territorial expansion and political domination. These traits, along with iron-fisted socioeconomic controls, are the essential characteristics of fascism.
In 2001, President George Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Qa'ida’s state sponsors in Afghanistan – the Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces faced brutal opposition but defeated Taliban forces, which allowed for the rise of a democratic government in Kabul.
In early 2002, President Bush set his sites on Iraq’s tyrant leader, Saddam Hussein. He estimated, correctly, that Iraq had, and was prepared to provide, Weapons of Mass Destruction to Jihadi terrorists like al-Qa'ida. As The Patriot reported in October 2002, our well-placed sources in the Southwest Asia theater, and intelligence sources within the NSA and NRO, estimated that the UN Security Council’s foot-dragging (with substantial help from the French and Russians) provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran prior to the launch of OIF.
The Cold War nuclear threat may have subsided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but The Long War, our campaign to secure the U.S. and our national interests and allies against Islamist terror, is heating up. Also on the rise is the risk of nuclear attack on Western targets. Albeit limited in scope, such attacks are much more probable now than during the Cold War. Preventing nuclear attack is more difficult today because our jihadi foes are asymmetric rather than symmetric entities.
Amid all the political posturing about whether we should surge into or out of Iraq, a reality check with the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom is in order when considering the Bush administration’s revised operation plan, and rules of engagement, to accomplish our OIF mission. Of course, reality checks have never been prerequisite to the Democrats’ foreign-policy positions, especially in the perpetual election cycle. Hard realities, after all, make for difficult decisions.
President Bush told the nation after the 9/11 attacks, “This is a long war, and we have a comprehensive strategy to win it. We’re taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don’t have to face them here at home. We’re denying our enemies sanctuary, by making it clear that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor or support terrorists.”
Indeed, it will be a Long War, and his Doctrine of Pre-emption is the best directive for strategy.
The usual Demo-gogue suspects are increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit to withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Many misguided Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik constituency in the run-up to next year’s presidential elections. Dangerous, because challenging the administration to agree to withdrawal only emboldens jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of the Long War from their turf to ours.
How the media undermines American will to stay the course in Iraq, and how Jihadi radicals use the American media.
A typical example of unmitigated media arrogance.
Start a conversation using these share links: